Where Is NOW?
December 19th, 2007 at 06:25am Leo Pusateri
A Muslim girl was murdered by her father, reportedly for her refusal to wear a hijab.
Where is the outrage in the streets from this woman’s sisters at NOW? A perusal of their website denotes no outrage, not even a mention of this story, nor any other story of oppression and/or torture of women at the hands of male Muslim counterparts!
Oh, they’re having a bloody cow over the reinstatement of Don Imus. But of course, calling someone a “nappy-headed ho” is a much more an egregious offense than strangling a girl to death, or mutilating her genitalia. They’re lobbying Congress for “hate crime” legislation, but I’ll bet not one word is said about the hate crimes that are perpetrated daily against their Muslim sisters.
Where are the demonstrations in the streets? Where are the hoardes at U.C. Berkeley who protested the supposed torture practiced by the CIA? (yes, I know that waterboarding is much more heinous than murder and beheading or lifelong subjugation of women)
Where is the outrage on the Left regarding the murder of Aqsa Parvez?
Could it be that there is no political gain or agenda to be advanced in demonstrating against Islamist atrocities? Could it be that the moonbat left has a problem pointing out that which may actually give credence to the reasons behind our war against radical Islam?
Could it be that the suffering of women isn’t really important to them at all?
Could it be that there must be a political payoff before they’ll demonstrate about anything? Or that any outrage that they do display is contrived and calculated to get the maximum political benefit?
Could. It. Be?
Entry Filed under: Democrats, Kook Left, Life Issues, War on Terror
64 Comments
1. SEW | December 19th, 2007 at 7:04 am
And where are the hate America posters from this board? Plantbrain, Canadian Observer, plainjane,..
Progressives. In name only. Liberals.
2. hermie | December 19th, 2007 at 7:38 am
Remember, liberals will criticize as long as they know the other guy isn’t going to fight back.
In the case of radical Islam, NOW knows that if they said anything they might actually have to be afraid of terrorists and the mad mullahs who promote these anti-women acts.
It’s easier for a NOW member to make snide remarks about the LDS, as the chances of being decked by a group of Mormons are quite low.
3. Bigfoot | December 19th, 2007 at 7:41 am
Where are the feminists? You mean the people who chanted choruses of “I believe Anita Hill”, but then told Paula Jones to go fly a kite? Or the people who raged against the “patriarchy”, but were happy to see Elian Gonzales sent back to his father in that communist concentration camp known as Cuba?
4. OhioOrrin | December 19th, 2007 at 7:44 am
the feminists r cowards in NOT continually reminding the world of islamofacist supression & brutality against women.
5. js | December 19th, 2007 at 8:18 am
There are good people in bad religions, and bad people in good religions.
It just so happens that Islam is not a good religion.
If it were, mohammad wouldnt have said that hell is full of women.
This hadith can be found in:-
SaHeeH Bukhari: 29, 304, 1052, 1462, 3241, 5197, 5198, 6449, 6546 (FatH Al-Bari’s numbering system)
SaHeeH Muslim: 80, 885, 907, 2737, 2738 (Abd Al-BaQi’s numbering system)
Sunan Al-Tarmithi: 635, 2602, 2603, 2613 (AHmad Shakir’s numbering system)
Sunan Al-Nasa’i: 1493, 1575 (Abi Ghuda’s numbering system)
Sunan Ibn Majah: 4003 (Abd Al-BaQi’s numbering system)
Musnad AHmad: 2087, 2706, 3364, 3376, 3559, 4009, 4027, 4111, 4140, 5321, 6574, 7891, 8645, 14386, 27562, 27567, 19336, 19351, 19415, 19425, 19480, 19484, 20743, 21729, 26508 (IHya’ Al-Turath’s numbering system)
Muwata’ Malik: 445 (Muqata’ Malik’s numbering system)
Sunan Al-Darimi: 1007 (Alami and Zarmali’s numbering system)
6. neocon | December 19th, 2007 at 8:21 am
Leo,
The problem was revealed in an earlier thread on B4V, and as pointed out by hermie.
Liberals are afraid of Islamists.
As much as they blame the Bush Admin for fear mongering, it turns out that they ARE REALLY AFRAID. How ironic is that?
The below transcript reveals the cowardice of the left.
HUGH HEWITT: Would you say the same things about Mohammed as you just said about Joseph Smith?
O’DONNELL: Oh, well, I’m afraid of what the…that’s where I’m really afraid. I would like to criticize Islam much more than I do publicly, but I’m afraid for my life if I do.
HEWITT: Well, that’s candid.
O’DONNELL: Mormons are the nicest people in the world. They’re not going to ever…
HEWITT: So you can be bigoted towards Mormons, because they’ll just send you a strudel.
O’DONNELL: They’ll never take a shot at me. Those other people, I’m not going to say a word about them.
7. Jon Parker | December 19th, 2007 at 10:28 am
Could it be…
Could it be that there is no mention of this from the National Organization for Women because it happened in Canada?
Naw, that would make too much sense.
8. Joe | December 19th, 2007 at 10:38 am
Jon Parker, Shhhh… don’t bring up minor technicalities like that.
9. lilly06 | December 19th, 2007 at 10:41 am
You know what, the ignorance that comes with this article is so discusting.
If you decide to judge all Christians by the extremist who blow up abortion clinics then you would assume that all Christians are extremists.
If you decided to judge all Hindus by the cast system in India and the way it has kept some Indians in poverty for generations then you would assume all Hindus are evil.
Yes, there are extremist Muslims but it unfair to generalise against a whole religion. There are many peaceful muslims who are not involved in any kind of violent behaviour and who actually practice Islam and not extremism. It would be good if you actually took the time to know the difference. I’m a Christian and I have at least taken to time to that.
Extremism exists in all paths of beliefs, it is ignorant to pick one example and use it to discriminate against a religion. That is ignorant.
And let me make things clear as there are excuse my language, ‘morons’ on this website who will automatically class me as a socialist, a liberal, a lefty etc. etc. I am non of those things. I consider myself to be moderate. Choosing not to discriminate does not make me a liberal.
10. plainjane | December 19th, 2007 at 10:42 am
I don’t know why I waste my time, but you have a post written by Leo referencing Michelle Malkin about an incident in Canada. Leo’s headline insinuates since NOW has not commented they must approve and endorse the killing of this girl. Matt and Mark even you have to agree this is taking the practice of Swift-boating over the edge.
Ok, I believe the girl’s father should be tried for murder. If convicted punished to the max under Canadian law.
P.S Leo, if you are on the ball on the proper punishment of Muslims, where were you and the other wingnuts when we were invading Iraq and we kept saying, HEY all of the hijackers are from Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Lebanon or Egypt?
11. NeoClown | December 19th, 2007 at 10:42 am
BFV states:
“George W. Bush’s war strategy was successful. We have achieved Victory in Iraq and our troops have started coming home. Iraq is much better off now that we took down Saddam.”
Recently the MSM reported:
“48 Muslim women have been killed in ‘Liberated Iraq.” In the past six months, many of them beheaded for “un-Islamic behavior.”
BFV had this to say regarding the murdered Iraqi women:
“ crickets. ”
Recently the MSM reported:
“A Canadian father kills his daughter for un-Islamic behavior.”
BFV asks:
“Where is the outrage in the streets? Where are the protesters? Where is NOW? Where are the hordes at U.C. Berkeley? Could it be that there is no political gain or agenda to be advanced in demonstrating against Islamist atrocities?”
BFV’s indignation is very selective. BFV’s faux outrage is nauseating.
“Could it be that there is no political gain or agenda to be advanced in demonstrating against Islamist atrocities that take place in Liberated Iraq?”
12. neocon | December 19th, 2007 at 11:12 am
Jon,
Good point. I guess our NOW members are only concerned with American women. Much like liberals being only concerned with themselves. Oh they like to talk about the plight of our global nieghbors at fundraisers and cocktail parties, but actually doing something about it would get to messy, right?
plain,
Wouldn’t it be in the interest of NOW to denounce actions such as this. Or, like O’Donnell, are they afraid?
lily06,
That is such a red herring. Conservatives have never viewed all Muslims as exremists, hence the partnership and rebuilding efforts with our Muslim partners in Iraq. Smarter liberals please.
Neoclown,
In our efforts to confront and denounce the killing of women in Iraq, we have placed 160,000 troops there, or did you not notice that? And furthermore, if liberals had their way and troops were withdrawn, how many more Islamic women would have been killed? That’s a rhetorical question.
We need smarter liberals here at B4V.
13. NeoClown | December 19th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
Neocon sez:
“In our efforts to confront and denounce the killing of women in Iraq, we’ve invaded, and occupied their country for the past six years.”
Yeah, well, you know Neo, those efforts didn’t work out all that well for those 48 headless Iraqi women, and I was wondering where your outrage was. Sure, we have troops over there, but where is your outrage?
Help me be smarter Neo. Explain to me why the murder of 48 Iraq women is not worthy of a post on BFV, but the murder of 1 Canadian woman is.
14. neocon | December 19th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
In an indirect way clown, B4V has been posting about the plight of Iraqi women for 4 years now. I am sorry you’ve missed it. By supporting our military against Islamist extremists, we are fighting for the future of Iraqi woman every single day.
I am so outraged by those actions that I support the continuance of military actions against extremists who inflict that harm on Muslim women. What do you support?
15. Jon Parker | December 19th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
neocon,
NOW is an organization with an agenda that promotes women’s issues in the US. I’m quite sure that no members would be thrilled with this story, but that doesn’t make it an issue for the organization. You’re just being ridiculous.
16. NeoClown | December 19th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
Mark,
I asked Neo why the murder of 48 Iraq women is not worthy of a post on BFV, but the murder of 1 Canadian woman is.
Neocon says you have been posting on the plight of Iraqi women. Be a pal and bump one of those post up for us to read.
Thanks,
17. Jonathan | December 19th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
Here are some more could it be’s Leo:
Could it be that NOW promotes only women’s issues in the United States, and you’re only ignoring that little detail because it would get in the way of one your false outrage rants?
Could it be that the main objective of your post is to pull off the trifecta of smearing liberals, NOW, and the religion of Islam?
Could it be that you’re just being ridiculous?
18. neocon | December 19th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Jon,
And that makes sense. NOW, like liberals, are isolationists, right? With very little concern for our global nieghbors.
Thank you for confirming that.
Clown,
Simply read the “Victory in Iraq” thread. In an inidrect way (do you understand indirect?), that thread supports the goal of creating a better future for Iraqi women.
Try and keep up.
19. neocon | December 19th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
Jonathan,
We wouldn’t want to smear Islam, right? I know how afraid of Islam all liberals are, so we’ll just keep our criticism for religions that wont threaten us, ok?
20. Diana Powe | December 19th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Fatuous, thy name is Blogs For Victo(r)y. Now let us consider the motivation for Leo Pusateri posting this entry today. Was it because he is absolutely committed to the cause of doing something about the worldwide epidemic of violence against women and girls? Perhaps. That would be wonderful if he was. In that instance he might do something with his position as a poster and urge readers here to communicate with their Senators and ask them to join Sen. Joseph Biden and Sen. Richard Lugar who jointly introduced the International Violence Against Women Act of 2007 (S. 2279) last month and which only currently has two cosponsors.
However, is it more likely that Leo read Michelle Malkin’s blog and decided to follow her lead and assert that this single instance of murder where the offender is already being prosecuted by the Canadian criminal justice system is evidence that sharia law is somehow taking control in Canada? Could it be that he failed to get similarly exercised over the 179 daughters who were murder victims in the United States in 2006 because he didn’t see their lifeless bodies as a useful stalking horse for his need to “prove” liberals are hypocrites and the enemy? Where was Leo’s outrage over the 92,455 forcible rapes in the United States in 2006?
Could it be that Michelle Malkin, who defended the forcible internment of 112,000 Americans of Japanese ancestry by FDR during World War II, and Leo are simply using the lifeless body of Aqsa Parvez as a tool in what they think is their little war against the liberal enemy and they don’t really care about her death at all? No, I’m sure they are constantly on the front lines whenever women and girls everywhere are the victims of violence because they really care about them. Why, because otherwise it might appear to be some contemptible attempt to score points with their sycophantic readers within the safe confines of their little virtual ponds.
21. plainjane | December 19th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
I am so outraged by those actions that I support the continuance of military actions against extremists who inflict that harm on Muslim women14. neocon | December 19th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
Are you suggesting we invade Canada?
22. neocon | December 19th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
Yes plain,
That’s what I am suggesting.
Sheesh.
23. Kahn | December 19th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
jon and joe, thats your comment? It happened in Canada?
What a brave couple of women’s rights crusaders you two are. Be proud.
I guess I’ve never understood that. I worked on political campaigns as a volunteer in Junior high and high school. Did the Marines thing. And am totally involved in Scouting. In other words, I contribute to the world. I act.
But when I was Marine, I realized that there are people out there who are afraid. Who cower. Who refuse to stand up and be counted.
I pity you.
24. Kahn | December 19th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
You don’t care either Jane? Can condemn a murder of a girl?
Just how DO you choose your priorities?
25. NeoClown | December 19th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Neocon,
BFV has a VERY direct post regarding the murder of one Canadian girl.
Why does the murder of 48 Iraqi women only warrant an indirect post? You do realize that American troops are responsible for the safety of Iraqi women don’t you?
Looks like the Canadian Mounties do a much better job of protecting their women.
26. FoolYouTwice | December 19th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
neocon,
If indirect references are good enough for B4V, then why not for NOW? Do you think supporting the rights of women for over 40 years is enough indirect evidence that they are outraged by this type of violence against women?
If typing blog posts about your support for the Iraq war counts as supporting the rights of Islamic women then I imagine 40 years of actual actions to support the rights of women must count in your mind.
So, you have a bit of a problem. Either admit you are using a double standard, or admit that Leo is wrong in is outrage at NOW.
27. Jon Parker | December 19th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
The reason I mention Canada is because the organization Leo mentioned is NOW, which is focused on US politics. It’s like the American Heart Association not sending out a press release on rising breast cancer rates — I’m sure no one at the AHA is in favor of breast cancer, but it has nothing to do with their mission, even though they’re both health related.
Why do you guys always go through the roof over people failing to express sufficient outrage to suit you?
28. js | December 19th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
how logical it is to don the cape of ignorance and conclude that there are extremists in every religion so its ok because its not islams fault
it works until you actually read the koran and haddith
just until you figure out that this stuff is sunna
and then?
well, you just need to get all of these sweet tarts that far, the rest will take care of its self
29. phnx | December 19th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
“Could it be that there is no mention of this from the National Organization for Women because it happened in Canada?”
Jon Parker, Joe, and Jonathan,
If you simpletons would check the NOW web site you would see that the NATIONAL organiziation for Women has spoken out on many international issues in the past. However since 2003 they have become muted to Islamic violence against women and instead have focused their attention of the evils of the Bush administration and the Iraq war, like most leftist with BDS.
“… there are good people and bad people in every religion.” Lilly
Wow!! What a perceptive observation. The only difference is that Islam is the only religion which not only condones but advocates violence against women. But as a MODERATE, that make you more tolerant of this typoe of behavior. How positively civil of you.
And PJ, as usual your post was completely ununintelligible. Did you have a point?
30. neocon | December 19th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
clown,
Would you feel better if we condemned the actions if Islamic extremists more vociferously. because, I thought the liberal rant about that was that were inciting unnecessary fear of the “bogeyman”.
But if you insist, I will start to condemn every single action of Islamic extremists and will know that this is what liberals would prefer.
Thank you for that.
And where is it stated that our military is directly responsible for the safety of Iraqi women?
foolyoutwice,
Leo is not outraged at all. He is simply pointing out the selective agenda that NOW employs in their support for women. NOW only cares about certain women, not the entire female population.
31. NeoClown | December 19th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
Neocon asks:
“And where is it stated that our military is directly responsible for the safety of Iraqi?”
When the US military disbanded the Iraqi military and police departments we assumed responsibility law and order in the country.
What do you think Colin Powell was talking about when he mentioned “Pottery Barn Rules?” “If you break it, you own it.” means once we invade Iraq, whatever happens we are responsible.
Who the hell do you think is responsible for law and order in Iraq?
We need some smarter conservatives on BFV.
32. FoolYouTwice | December 19th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
neocon,
Good thing you avoided the point of my post. NOW supports the rights of women and only a partisan with their own agenda would try to imply they don’t find anything wrong in the slaying of any women.
If Leo wants to attack NOW, he should be able to do it without resorting to using flawed logic. If Leo and yourself honestly believe that NOW does not even care about Muslim women then it would take a lot more evidence than one blog post about one women’s death they didn’t comment on.
Of course, Leo just “perused” their website. Has he attended any meetings to find out if this women has been mentioned? Has he read all their press releases to see if she was mentioned?
33. Jonathan | December 19th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
FoolYouTwice,
I’ve dealt with Leo in the past and I can tell you that he’s just doing what he does best: talking out of his own ass.
34. BARRASSO | December 19th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
BFV seems to not have posted on all the puppy rape going on in the world, therefore BFV is in favor of puppy rape.
35. Kahn | December 19th, 2007 at 5:37 pm
FoolYouTwice - Well I thought that having Marines trying to hunt you down and kill you is pretty strong action. I guess not.
I can’t believe you’re all even arguing about this. What is there to defend?
36. neocon | December 19th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
Clown,
I would say the 260,000+ Iraqi military and security forces are responsible for the security of Iraqi women. Wouldn’t you?
And why do you continue to think they are not capable of that? Why do you continue to denigrate our global neighbors?
More conscientious liberals please.
37. FmrMarine | December 19th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
NOW……………”THIS IS AN OUTRAGE, WE DEPLORE MUSLEMS” ACTIONS!
now member……PSSSSST “muslems KILL people who CRITICIZE them”!
NOW…………. “WE DEPLORE Christians, we LOOOOVE muslems”.
These people are a total joke, they belong with the flying monkeys associated with the demoncRAT party.
38. Rana Quijotesca | December 19th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
js-
Before you go and rail against Islam (which I agree, has its scriptural problems), look at your own religion… I can pull stuff out of the Bible that would make you blush…
39. Canuckguy | December 19th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
Rana, you stated “I can pull stuff out of the Bible that would make you blush”.
That is beside the point. The fact is we in of the Western culture have shunted Christianity aside out of political control (where witch burnings et al are no longer practised) whereas fundamentalist Islam has a huge influence on the behaviour of Muslim societies.
With the exception of a few Muslim spokemen in canada, most of the spin by Muslim associations there is that abuse of females is a general canadian problem and Islam had nothing to do with the incident. I don’t buy that bullshit. Clearly the mindset of those who run the show in Muslim society in Canada contributed to the girls death.
40. Diana Powe | December 19th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
As a group of people who typically disdain the media, I find it fascinating that so many can read one news account of a murder and be able to discern so much about the motive or motives of the murderer. At the end of the day, Aqsa Parvez’s father apparently is guilty of murdering his daughter and yet somehow this one crime against a young girl, out of all such crimes, is suddenly a cause célèbre because Michelle Malkin has instructed you to believe one particular rumor about the motive.
Interestingly, those who actually have knowledge of the case, the police haven’t said anything:
and their are other possible motives according to a friend of the victim:
Do I know what was going through the mind of Muhammad Parvez as he killed his daughter. Not being a mind reader, I don’t. In fact, no one here knows. What we do know is that Aqsa Parvez was murdered and her killer is in the hands of the criminal justice system and should be dealt with accordingly. Now if that process serves to prevent the death of anyone, for any reason, including discrediting the reprehensible practice of so-called “honor killing”, then all for the better. However, the cheapening of Aqsa Parvez’s death in this manner reflects very poorly on you.
41. neocon | December 20th, 2007 at 7:46 am
Diana,
I agree. We should really try and understand why
Muhammad Parvez killed his daughter. In fact, I propose that we send him to counseling and maybe some distant tropical island where he can relax and contemplate his actions.
I suspect George Bush played a role in this too.
42. Diana Powe | December 20th, 2007 at 11:10 am
neocon,
Your comments are a perfect example of what I was addressing. Muhammad Parvez is in the hands of the Canadian criminal justice system, as he should be, and he may be subject to a punishment of up to mandatory life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for 25 years, as he should be. Your sneering insinuation that I think he should be sent to counseling bears no relation to what I’ve written and indicates, as I said, that you and Michelle Malkin and Leo don’t really have any interest in the fact of Aqsa Parvez’s death beyond your cheap little political point-scoring. Fortunately, those facts that can be learned about his motive or motives by the police and properly presented in court by the prosecution will serve to inform the finder of fact which is what truly matters. You should be embarrassed, but I’m guessing you won’t.
43. TiredofLibBullShit | December 20th, 2007 at 11:12 am
“I suspect George Bush played a role in this too.”
Don’t forget…climate change contributed in this too.
Where was NOW defenders of women from their powerful supervisors…..we saw them in action against Justice Clarence Thomas!!!! stating that all actions of male supervisors towards female underlings were harrassment (even though concensual), because he had power over her…but again they were no where to be seen for Slicky Blue Dress.
NOW is a joke and so are those who cave to those related in any way to Muslime too.
44. Rana Quijotesca | December 20th, 2007 at 11:39 am
Canuckguy-
js’s comment about Islam wasn’t about fundamentalist Islam at all; it was a general comment about Islam being a “bad religion.” I posit that it is not worse than Christianity or Judaism. In fact, I would argue that most, if not all religions don’t fit the modern American conception of morality–except maybe Jainism–if you actually read and follow their texts.
Bullshit-
Here
That took me less than one minute on “teh googles”….
You’re a joke, and so are the people who look at one instance in another country and paint an entire NATIONAL organization accordingly…
45. Canuckguy | December 20th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
Attn: Diana Power
When a crime happens, it is a common human response to try and guess motives and perpetrator. Like an armchair detective, I (and many others no doubt), play the game utilizing my knowledge, prejudices, past history, what have you and start formulating answers and as more information comes in, refine the guessed solution as time goes buy. It is relatively easy, for example, often it is the husband or boyfriend who kills his wife/girlfriend and in those highly public murdered wives cases in the last while, it was easy to often guess the right answer with a few threads of fact and conjecture. And thus it is so with this honour killing in Canada (that is what it is and the facts most likely will support my conclusion down the road). As for the Tahir, really, you expect an observant Muslim family to say otherwise? I concluded Tahir?s dismissal of the motive being an honour killing to be entirely bogus. We shall see.
As for the police comments, that is their usual political correct tip toeing about or just keeping the facts close to their chest until the investigation is completed. If you were not so blinded by your lack of knowledge of the depths humans can sink in the name of a supposed God?s supposed laws, you would not be on your haughty politically correct high horse.
Another example is the unfortunate senior citizen who was murdered up here in Canada while delivering Christmas cards to his friends and neighbours. Some blogs started blaming the Left for creating an atmosphere of hating Christians and I (before the facts came out support my guess), guessed that it was probably some loser off his meds. Turns out I was right. Nobody is going to stop this judge and jury game. You don?t have to have all the facts exhaustively on record to come up with the right answers. And you don’t have to be a mind reader.
46. neocon | December 20th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
canuckguy,
Well stated. One other thought, I would assume, and would hope, that Diana champions womens rights. Yet when it comes to Muslims, and those that live by the strict interpretation of a womans role, people like Diana are quick with excuses and platitudes.
It is bourne of fear. Liberals, like O’Donnell revealed the other day, are afraid of Islam and would never criticize their faith they way they criticize Christianity or Judaism.
47. Diana Powe | December 20th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Canuckguy,
You’re correct in so far as it goes. People armchair theorize all the time and that’s understandable. However, I can assure you that my 30 years as a Texas police officer has not left me bereft of knowledge of the depths that human beings can sink to including the depths of using Aqsa Parvez’s death as a cynical tool to try to “prove” something larger than the fact that she was murdered.
“Honor killings” are a malignancy. Neocon likes to humor himself or herself with his or her notions of my being afraid of Muslims, but murder is wrong and, in this particular instance, it is the proper place of the court system in Canada to weigh Muhammad Parvez’s individual motive or motives when he reaches trial. Trying to claim it as signifying the rise of sharia law in Canada, as Michelle Malkin does in her piece, is a spit in the face of the Canadian criminal justice system and mocks Aqsa Parvez’s death by trivializing her into a pawn on Malkin’s little political chessboard.
neocon,
Feel free to stop using “O’Donnell”, (whoever that is, given that you cited no source for your quote) as a proxy for untold numbers of people. It doesn’t burnish your reputation for intellectual honesty.
48. neocon | December 20th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
Diana,
I’ve posted this once before, but it bears repeating.
LAWRENCE O’DONNELL: I don’t think he [Mitt Romney] believes everything in the Book of Mormon. I think he’s lying about that. It’s an insane document produced by a madman who was a criminal and a rapist. [...]
HUGH HEWITT: Would you say the same things about Mohammed as you just said about Joseph Smith?
O’DONNELL: Oh, well, I’m afraid of what the…that’s where I’m really afraid. I would like to criticize Islam much more than I do publicly, but I’m afraid for my life if I do.
HEWITT: Well, that’s candid.
O’DONNELL: Mormons are the nicest people in the world. They’re not going to ever…
HEWITT: So you can be bigoted towards Mormons, because they’ll just send you a strudel.
O’DONNELL: They’ll never take a shot at me. Those other people, I’m not going to say a word about them.
HEWITT: They’ll send you a strudel. The Mormons will bake you a cake and be nice
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2007/12/12/lawrence-odonnell-too-afraid-criticize-islam
49. neocon | December 20th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
Diana,
The fact that you didn’t know who O’Donnell was, just underscores your naivety.
And the fact that are quick to ignore the historical record re: Sharia law and the father-daughter relationship within those confines, suggests to me that you will avoid cirticizing Islam at every turn because of your fear.
Had this been a Christian family, I can only imagine the vitriol that you most likely would have espoused.
50. Ricorun | December 20th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Dianna Powe: Trying to claim it as signifying the rise of sharia law in Canada, as Michelle Malkin does in her piece, is a spit in the face of the Canadian criminal justice system and mocks Aqsa Parvez’s death by trivializing her into a pawn on Malkin’s little political chessboard.
If you can tighten it up a bit, I’d nominate it as another candidate for best one-liner of the season.
51. neocon | December 20th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
Rico,
I prefer “one liners of the season” to be based in fact. But maybe that’s just me. What Malkin was commenting on was the glossing over of the possible Islamic connection, not the “rise of sharia law”
The following is a quote from the Islamic Congress. And I guess I didn’t realize that Canada had a big problem with teenage daughters being killed by their fathers. Who knew?
“I don’t want the public to think that this is really an Islamic issue or an immigrant issue,” said Mohamed Elmasry of the Canadian Islamic Congress. “It is a teenager issue.”
And if you both had the courage to recognize the many previous instances of this crime, and the direct relation to Islam culture, then you might actually awaken to other realities that you hide from.
52. Ricorun | December 20th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
neocon: And if you both had the courage to recognize the many previous instances of this crime, and the direct relation to Islam culture, then you might actually awaken to other realities that you hide from.
Stretch it out a bit… is the issue in Canada an issue about religious fundamentalism, or Islamic fundamenalism? Especially in light of what happened in Colorado Springs recently, the more important questions are (a) is there a difference between Islamic fundamentalism and other forms of religious fundamenalism, and; (b) among or between those distinctions, is there a difference between crazy people and not?
53. neocon | December 20th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
Rico,
You compared the two concepts as mutually inclusive. They are not.
There are fundamentalists, both crazy and not. And there are secularists, both crazy and not.
To imply that the crazy who perpetrated the crime in CO Springs also had to be fundamentalist is dishonest, but completely within the liberal view of Christianity.
However to ignore the past horrific incidences that result from Islamic fundamentalist father-daughter relationships, as it pertains to this case, has to be either fear based or agenda driven.
54. Ricorun | December 20th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
neocon: You compared the two concepts as mutually inclusive. They are not.
Granted, I didn’t say what I meant as well as I could have, but apparently you understood my point, given this…
There are fundamentalists, both crazy and not. And there are secularists, both crazy and not.
So what part of “mutually exclusive” don’t you understand?
55. neocon | December 20th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
Those subsets are all mutually exclusive. That’s my point.
56. Ricorun | December 20th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
neocon: Those subsets are all mutually exclusive. That’s my point.
In that case, it appears we agree. But again in that case, how do you reconcile everything else you said on this thread? Talk about having only one oar in the water.
57. Diana Powe | December 20th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
neocon,
Ohhhhhh, Lawrence O’Donnell! Why didn’t you say so? Now remind of the date when we all voted for Lawrence O’Donnell as being a proxy for everyone you define as liberal. I can never remember that and I keep getting confused and thinking he’s like an individual and not part of the hive-mind.
58. neocon | December 20th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
Rico,
What? Can you not, keeping in mind the history of the religion of peace, identify the one of the four subsets responsible? It’s FUNdamental for our father of the year in Canada. Islam fundamental that is.
Diana,
O’Donnell just had the courage to say it. Next time I see you criticize Islam with as much vitriol as you criticize Christianity, well then I will be wrong. But I know I am right. It’s either fear based or agenda driven. Prove me wrong.
59. Diana Powe | December 20th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
I love it! Please, please neocon quote back to me some examples of when I criticized Christianity (from my position as a Christian) with “much vitriol”! I can hardly stand the wait!
60. Diana Powe | December 20th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
Oh, and it’s an automatic “nuh-uh” if you try to conflate your version of “conservatism” with Christianity. That dog won’t hunt.
61. neocon | December 20th, 2007 at 9:21 pm
Well for that, I am amiss, and I apologize. I thought I recalled your post on an earlier abortion thread that had excoriated Christianity, but after checking I realized it was from someone else.
Nonetheless, many liberal ideologues feel very comfortable criticizing and ridiculing Christianity and/or Judaism yet remain silent on Islam. Why?
62. Diana Powe | December 20th, 2007 at 9:26 pm
Your apology is most heartily accepted. If they’re an ideologue, then they’re probably not trying to use logic so who’s to say? In any case, any instance of “honor killing” or female genital mutilation by Muslims, or anyone else, is a malignancy and should be prosecuted at every possible term.
63. Diana Powe | December 20th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
Leo asked…
64. american family auto insu&hellip | January 18th, 2008 at 11:19 am
american family auto insurance
american family auto insurance